A maturity model for SCPMS project: an empirical
investigation in large sized Moroccan companies
Chafik Okar1, Zitouni Beidouri2, Said Mssassi3, Said Barrijal4 1Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, University Abdelmalek Essaâdi,
Tanger, Morocco
2Faculty of Sciences, University Hassan II Ain chock, Casablanca, Morocco
3The National School of Business and Management, University Abdelmalek Essaâdi, Tanger, Morocco
4Faculty of Sciences and Techniques, University Abdelmalek Essaâdi, Tanger, Morocco
Abstract
In the recent years many studies on maturity model have been carried out. Some refer specifically to maturity models for supply chain and performance measurement system.
Starting from an analysis of the existing literature, the aim of this paper is to develop a maturity model for the supply chain performance measurement system (SCPMS) project based on the concept of critical success factors (CSFs). This model will be validated by two approaches. The first is a pilot test of the model in a Moroccan supply chain to demonstrate his capacity of assessing the maturity of SCPMS project and whether it can develop an improvement roadmap. The second is an empirical investigation in large sized Moroccan companies by using a survey to depict whether it can evaluate the maturity of SCPMS project in different industries.
Keywords:
Maturity model, Project management, Supply chain performance, measurement system.1. Introduction
Today’s manufacturing competition goes beyond
single companies and becomes a battle fought
between supplies chains. To deal with the
complexity of the current industrial context, new
strategies has gained wide acceptance when driving
continuous improvement. Generally, these
strategies include the following steps: identifying
key areas, as-is situation analysis, planning and
implementing changes, monitoring the results, and
developing a closed-loop control system [1]. To
acquire a decent functioning of the previous steps
we need to enhance the quality of SCPMS.
Indeed, the project of developing and implementing
SCPMS has become one of the critical issue for
gaining competitive advantages for companies and
replying to ever increasing market pressure.
Although many studies on that issue have been
carried out in the last few years, Olugu and Wong
support the idea that there is still a gap in
knowledge in the area of supply chain performance
measurement [2]. Several studies have revealed that
there are many obstacles and barriers for supply
chain performance management [3,4]. While others
propose that reviewing and improving SCPMS
should be a continuous process [5,6].
There are many models of maturity project such as
Capability Maturity Model Integration [7], Project
Management Maturity Model [8], Organizational
Project Management Maturity model [9], and others
that are available for companies to improve their
Projects Management. However, none of these
models of maturity address the project of designing
and implementing SCPMS specifically. Also, there
are few studies on the maturity model in
performance measurement system [10,11], and
supply chain [12,13].
In this paper, we will describe a maturity model for
the project of designing and implementing SCPMS.
In order to develop this maturity model, we will use
the concept of critical success factors (CSFs) [14]
and we will try to validate it through a pilot test and
empirical investigation in large sized Moroccan
companies.
2. The project of developing and
implementing SCPM
strategic decisions and objectives [16]. Berrah and
Vincent define a SCPMS as a multi criteria
instrument, made of a set of performance metrics,
to be consistently organized with respect to the
objectives of the company [1]. A SCPMS may
include many management processes, such as
identifying measures, defining targets, planning,
communication, monitoring, reporting and feedback
[6]. Balanced and multidimensional frameworks
and methodologies have therefore been proposed to
support SCPMS, such as the SCOR [17], the
balanced scorecard [16] and ABC [18].
After a literature review we recommend following
steps for a project of designing and implementing
SCPMS:
Project initiation;
Human resources preparation;
Choice of SCPMS framework and
defining indicators;
Launch SCPMS;
Improve SCPMS.
The difficulties of designing and implementing
SCPMS have been widely cited in literature
[3,19,20]. The researches on the critical factors for
initial and ongoing SCPMS project design and
implementation success are rare. At the same time a
lot of project management researchers have been
trying to discover which factors lead to project
success [21]. However, none of these studies
specifically address SCPMS project.
Through a comprehensive review of literature, we
can summarize critical success factors for each
project life cycle stage of designing and
implementing SCPMS in Table 1.
Table 1: the critical success factors for a project of designing and implementing SCPMS
Project life cycle Critical success factors Authors
Project initiation
A steering committee should be appointed to the SCPMS project containing the various stakeholders and functions of the supply chain, known for its expertise, and supervised by an external expert in the field of the SCPMS.
[22]
All the SCPMS project's motivations must be chosen (Strategic Alignment, Continuous Improvement, Management Control, Decision Support, Communication Support, Risk management)
[16,17,23, 24] A business process management (BPM) for supply chain must precedes the project of
designing and implementing SCPMS [25] The benefits of the project of designing and implementing SCPMS must clearly exceed
the yield [26]
Human resources preparation
Top management support and commitment must be clear [10] A supply chain culture with a trusting environment is needed for a decent success of
SCPMS project [26,27,28]
Good awareness programs for all stakeholders about SCPMS project is a very significant
key of success [3]
It is essential to provide a necessary, appropriate training to all stakeholders in every
stage of the SCPMS project [29, 30] The participatory style must be used in SCPMS project in order to motivate human
resources adhering the project and reduce resistance. [31,32]
Choice of SCPMS framework and
defining indicators
Launch a general audit of the existing SCPMS and determine the degree of his formality
and his appropriation by users [33,34] Choose a suitable framework of SCPMS with balanced perspectives (Finance, Customer,
employer, supplier, internal process, Learning and development environment/community) [35] Choose a limited number of performance indicators for SCPMS that reflect a balance
between financial and non-financial measures related to strategic, tactical and operational levels of decision making and control. [36] Define the settings of indicators: Data source, Formula, Targets setting, frequency,
Responsibility, Suitable aggregation, Cost, Performance drivers, Suitable resources for actions should be taken, Cause and effect, and finally Security system.
[1,16,37,38]
Launch SCPMS
Automate collecting of a suitable data and store it with existing information system [10,19] The reporting of SCPMS should be integrated with the existing information system,
disseminates understandable information and give great attention to the reports format (Graphs should be the primary method of reporting performance data)
[10,16,39]
Improving SCPMS
Ensuring acceptance of the indicators and achieve a consensus about SCPMS with all
Stakeholders [26]
Improve features of the SCM software system, including the system functionality,
flexibility, integration, reliability, user friendliness, and security. [40] Use the Business intelligence and the visual management system as a platform to
3. The maturity model for designing and
implementing SCPMS
The concept of the process maturity was born in the
Total Quality Management movement and it was
widely adopted in ‘‘Capability Maturity Model’’
for software organizations. Then this concept
migrated to organizational process and project
management [43].
The project management maturity models provide
means of identifying some crucial steps to be taken,
the tasks that are necessary to accomplish and the
sequence of events needed to realize significant and
quantifiable results [44].
The Maturity Model for Performance Measurement
Systems implies that a PMS are evolving or can be
transformed from one level to the next [11]. The
most important forces that initiate and accelerate
evolution of the PMS are the following [11]:
Rivalry among competitors; Information needed
from managers; Company-external requirements
and IT capabilities.
(Najmi et al.) suggested that the PMS should be
dynamic and has to be reviewed and updated
frequently (Ongoing, periodic, overall) [5]. The
ability of keeping the PMS continuously updated is
a challenge for every SC, which need to be
extremely flexible and reactive to market changes.
Really a project of designing, implementing, using
and continuously updating performance
measurement systems must be Launch incessantly
in the SC. Hence there is a need for a model that
assesses the maturity of this type of project.
On the basis of empirical data and an analysis of
previous maturity models, Wettstein and Kueng
developed a PMS maturity model for assessing
existing PMS in firms [11]. They describe the
development of a PMS over time, following an
evolutionary pattern through four maturity levels
(Ad-hoc, Adolescent, Grown-up and Mature). This
model is characterized by the progressive
development along six dimensions (Scope of
Measurement, Data Collection, Storage of Data,
Communication of Performance Results, Use of
Performance Measures, and Quality of Performance
Measurement Processes).
(Najmi et al.) developed a framework for PMS in
terms of strategic relevance of measures as well as
efficiency and effectiveness by using different tools
(EFQM self-assessment process, affinity diagram,
prioritization grid) and identifying tree review
stages (ongoing, periodic, overall) [5].
Cocca and Alberti concluded that the maturity grids
seem to be the most suitable approach to develop an
effective tool for a PMS assessment in SMEs [10].
Based in performance best practices and other PMS
maturity model, they developed a PMS self-
assessment tool for SMEs that consists of some
scorecards series. Each scorecard contains three
areas which describe three stages of development of
practice with consideration following an
evolutionary path: level 1 is elementary practice
while level 3 corresponds to a good practice [10].
Reyes and Giachetti proposed a three dimensions
supply chain maturity model [13]:
The supply chain views (Supply Chain
Management & Logistics, Production System,
Inventory Management, Customer Relationship
Management, Human Resources Management,
Information System & Technology management
and Performance Measurement System);
The abstraction levels (Strategic, Tactical and
operational);
The life-cycle maturity levels (Undefined,
Defined, Manageable, Collaborative and
Leading).
For each maturity level, the model defines key
improvement factors and appropriate tools that a
firm can use to move up to the next higher maturity
level. So once an enterprise determines its maturity
level, it can define an improvement roadmap using
key improvement factors and appropriate tools. The
model assessment methodology starts with
completing a questionnaire which helps managers
to determine company’s maturity level for each
view. The possible answer for each question is
“yes” or “no” and the enterprise should document
the evidence that supports the affirmative answer.
The structure of our maturity model is built upon
the following three dimensions:
Maturity level dimension (Ad-hoc, Adolescent,
Grown-up and Mature);
Life cycle stages of project of designing and
implementing SCPMS;
The critical success factors (CSFs) for a project
of designing and implementing SCPMS.
The model incorporates some success’s critical
factors that have been identified in the previous
sections and some elements from other maturity
models [10,11,13]. We describe the maturity model
for a project of designing and implementing
SCPMS in table 2.
Within a stage of SCPMS project life cycle, for
each critical success factors the maturity level is
assessed. The enterprise should document the
evidence that supports the maturity level for each
critical success factors. The level of maturity stage
of SCPMS project life cycle is the minimum of all
critical success factors maturity level. The SCPMS
project‘s maturity level is the minimum of all stages
maturity level.
Table 2: Maturity model for a project of designing and implementing SCPMS SCPMS Project life cycle CSFs of SCPMS
project Maturity Level 1ad-hoc Maturity Level 2Adolescent Maturity Level 3 grown-up Maturity Level 4 mature
Project initiation
The Steering
committee No project steering committee
A steering committee was appointed to the project but with little involvement of
stakeholders and functions of the supply chain
A steering committee was appointed to the project but with a wide participation of stakeholders and functions of the supply chain
A steering committee was appointed to the SCPMS project
containing the various stakeholders and functions of the supply chain, known for its expertise, supervised by an external expert in the field of the SCPMS. The
motivations of the project
The motivations of the project are not specified
Some motivations of the
project are design ated
Most of
the motivations of the project are designated
All the SCPMS project's motivations must be chosen (Strategic Alignment, Continuous Improvement, Risk Management, Management Control, Decision Support, Communication Support) BPM of
supply chain No BPM of supply chain before the SCPM S project
A partial BPM of supply chain precedes the SCPMS project
A BPM of the most activities in supply chain precedes the SCPMS project
A global BPM of supply chain precedes the SCPMS project
Cost of SCPMS project
No studies on the cost of the SCPMS project
A preliminary study on the cost of the SCPMS project is done
More studies on the cost of the SCPMS project are done
A global study on the cost and the economic efficiency of the SCPMS project is done
Human resources Preparation Project management Style No specified style management for SCPMS project
A coercive style management is adopted for SCPMS project
A directing style management is used in SCPMS project
A participatory style is used in SCPMS project
Organization al culture and trusting environment
A suspicious environment and individual culture are the basis of organizational culture
A less suspicious environment and individual culture are the basis of organizational culture
An individual culture and trusting environment are the basis of
organizational culture
A supply chain culture and trusting environment are the basis of organizational culture Human resources awareness and training The project does not include awareness and training programs Preliminary awareness and training programs is provided to a few stakeholders at some stages of the SCPMS project
Preliminary awareness and training programs are provided to all stakeholders at each stage of the SCPMS project
Good awareness and training programs are provided to all
stakeholders at each stage of the SCPMS project
Choice of SCPMS framework And defining performance indicators The existing
SCPMS The SCPMS project does not include an audit of the existing SCPMS
The SCPMS project includes a preliminary audit of the existing SCPMS
The SCPMS project includes a partial audit of the existing SCPMS and determine the degree of his formality and his appropriation by users
The SCPMS project includes a general audit of the existing SCPMS and determine the degree of his formality and his
appropriation by users
Scope of the SCPMS framework Only financial performance indicators are considered. Financial performance indicators are measured. In addition, a few non-financial indicators are measured as well.
The financial and non-financial performance indicators was chosen and linked to strategy at different SC levels
are measured in an integral way. A limited number of performance indicators Too
many indicators t hat do not measure all supply chain activities and all Abstraction Levels
A limited number of indicators that do not measure all supply chain activities and all Abstraction Levels
Too
many indicators that measure all supply chain activities and all Abstraction Levels
A limited number of indicators that measure all supply chain activities and all Abstraction Levels
The settings of
performance indicators
The settings of performance indicators are not defined
The targets setting of performance indicators are designed
Some settings of performance indicators are defined
All the settings of performance indicators are defined: Data source, Formula, Targets setting, frequency, Responsibility, Suitable aggregation, Cost, Performance drivers, A suitable resources for action to be taken, aggregation, Cause and effect, Security. Launch SCPMS Collection and Storage of Data Most performance- relevant data is collected manually and stored in various formats.
Financial performance data is collected and stored from operational IT systems; however, some manual intervention is needed. Collection and storage of financial performance data is fully automated; collection and storage of non-financial data needs some manual handling.
Internal and external data sources are exploited. Data collection is fully automated and stored in integrated information system. Communicati on of SCPMS reports Performance reports are disseminated on an ad-hoc basis. Software for data analysis and performance reporting are not used.
Performance reports are disseminated periodically to the upper and middle management by spreadsheets and simple office software. Clear communication structures are established. Non-financial figures are integral part of reported data. Most results are communicated via push mechanism. Additionally, some performance reports can be accessed electronically.
Financial and non-financial performance results are transmitted to the stakeholders electronically (push option).
Additionally, performance results can be accessed electronically at different level of aggregation. Software for data analysis and performance reporting are used. Improve SCPMS Consensus and acceptance
They aren’t any consensus and acceptance about SCPMS with all Stakeholders
There are a preliminary consensus and acceptance about SCPMS with all Stakeholders
The most Stakeholders agree and accept the SCPMS
All Stakeholders agree and accept the SCPMS
improvement of
information system support to the SCPMS
The information system is not integrated and The most SCPMS reports are communicated by spreadsheets or simple software The information system is integrated but The most SCPMS reports are communicated by spreadsheets or simple software
The most SCPMS indicators are fully integrated with IS. Specific software for performance reporting is available and used
The SCPMS are fully integrated with IS. The IS are integrated, secure, user friendliness, flexible and include all require functionalities. Business intelligence are used as support to communicate SCPMS report Rewards and recognition process The individual rewards and recognition process aren’t linked with the SCPMS
Some individual rewards are linked to the SCPMS
The most individual rewards are linked to the SCPMS
4. Model Validation
The proposed model has two objectives: first
provide a framework to assess maturity level of
SCPMS project, and second, offer a support for
companies to develop an improvement roadmap to
his SCPMS. Our model validation examines
whether this model is suited for these two uses.
Two approaches are used to validate this model.
The first is a pilot test of the model in a Moroccan
supply chain to demonstrate whether it can assess
the maturity of SCPMS project and develop an
improvement roadmap. The second is an empirical
investigation in large sized Moroccan companies of
the assessment capability of the model in different
industries.
4.1 The Pilot Test
To evaluate the model in an actual industry setting,
we conducted a pilot test with Moroccan company
that accepts to participate in the study. For
confidential reasons we will call this society
MARATA.
MARATA is a company specialized in food
products for the national market with two sites of
production and several distribution warehouses. It
belongs to a Moroccan group and it is ranked in 124
within the top 500 Moroccan companies by 73
millions USD. MARATA’s supply chain consists
of the following processes: planning, procurement,
manufacture, delivery and returns management.
The market is dominated by MARATA which has
increasing competition from other companies
recently installed. It is a precursor of pre-sales
system in Morocco that improves customer service
and optimizes logistics. Delivery is outsourced in
some regions (hybrid distribution and wholesalers)
for the sake of streamlining. Sales have recorded a
growing between 2003 and 2010. The company is
based on forecasts for raw materials needs
calculations. Production is committed to ensuring
three days of stocks to medium-sized sales.
Logistics is responsible of dispatching the
quantities produced in centers following the level of
demand. A returns management system is
implemented to deal with returned products by
customer, from the client claim to the destruction of
items.
Over a period of one year we were member of
MARATA’s steering committee of the designing
and implementing a SCPMS project. We
summarize the maturity level of MARATA’s
SCPMS project in table 3 as it was assessed by
authors.
After the assessment of maturity level, based on the
proposed model, we developed an improvement
roadmap for MARATA Company’s SCPMS project
as it is shown in table 4.
Table 3: The maturity level of MARATA’s SCPMS project
SCPMS Project life cycle stages
CSFs of SCPMS project
Maturity Level of MARATA’s CSFs of SCPMS project
Maturity Level of MARATA’s stages of SCPMS project
Project initiation
The Steering committee Level 2
Level 2 The motivations of the project Level 2
BPM of supply chain Level 3 Cost of SCPMS project Level 3 Human
resources
Project management Style Level 4
Level 2 Organizational culture and trusting environment Level 2
Human resources awareness and training Level 2 Choice of
SCPMS framework And defining performance indicators
The existing SCPMS Level 4
Level 3 Scope of the SCPMS framework Level 3
A limited number of performance indicators Level 3 The settings of performance indicators Level 3 Launch
SCPMS
Collection and Storage of Data Level 3
Level 3 Communication of SCPMS reports Level 3
Improve SCPMS
Consensus and acceptance Level 2
Level 2 improvement of information system support to the SCPMS Level 3
Table 4: The improvement roadmap for MARATA Company’s SCPMS project
SCPMS Project life cycle stages
CSFs of SCPMS project Improvement roadmap of MARATA’s CSFs of SCPMS
project
Project initiation
The steering committee Ensure a wide participation of stakeholders and functions of the supply chain in the steering committee The motivations of the project The motivations of the project must be more challenging
(strategic alignment, continuous improvement, management control, decision support, communication support)
BPM of supply chain Guarantee a global BPM of SC before the project Cost of SCPMS project Launch a global study on the cost and the economic
efficiency of the SCPMS project Human
resources
Project management Style Maintain a participatory style in the project
Organizational culture and trusting environment Create a trusting environment and initiate a SC culture Human resources awareness and training Provide an awareness and training programs to all
stakeholders at each stage of the SCPMS project Choice of
SCPMS framework And defining performance indicators
The existing SCPMS Maintain a general audit of the existing SCPMS Scope of the SCPMS framework Choose a suitable framework for SCPMS project A limited number of performance indicators Choose a limited number of performance indicators that
measure all supply chain activities The settings of performance indicators Define all settings of performance indicators Launch
SCPMS Collection and Storage of Data Communication of SCPMS reports Automate data collection and storage in integrated IS Use reporting software for communications of reports Improve
SCPMS
Consensus and acceptance Create Stakeholders consensus and acceptance about SCPMS
improvement of information system support to the SCPMS
Improve SI integration and link it to the SCPMS Rewards and recognition process Link the most individual rewards to the SCPMS
4.2 An empirical investigation in large sized
Moroccan companies
To analyze the validity of the proposed model, we
will use it to measure the SCPMS project maturity
in Moroccan firms. We have chosen for our study
the top 500 Moroccan companies ranked by
turnover. We hope that in this category of
companies, the project management, performance
management and supply chain culture are more
developed to success our empirical investigation.
Over the past decade, Morocco has embarked on an
ambitious program of structural reforms in several
fields, aiming to further liberalize its markets and
enhance the competitiveness of its economy.
However Morocco is not a leader in the area of
supply chain management, the country is significant
in terms of internal markets and international trade.
Therefore, there are many international world-class
supply chain service providers participating in
different Moroccan economic sectors.
In this section we will try to give an answer, with
reference to the context investigated, to the
following research question: What are the maturity
levels that characterize SCPMS project’s in large
sized Moroccan Companies?
The research question will be answered through
hypotheses testing. For this question we propose
one hypothesis: A company could be very advanced
regarding one stage of SCPMS project life cycle,
while being rather antiquated regarding another.
In order to examine the above research question, a
survey method was selected rather than the case
study approach because while case study research is
used to explore build definitions and generate
hypotheses, survey research allows testing of
hypotheses and theory construction [45].
The total population investigated was constituted of
the top 500 Moroccan companies ranked by
turnover. Based in 2008 ranking, the turnover of
this Moroccan enterprises category is comprised
between 16 millions and 3 752 millions USD.
Through a stratified random sampling, dividing the
population into strata according to wide range of
industry settings and size, a probabilistic sample of
200 companies was obtained. The sample is
composed of companies from different economic
sectors. This includes manufacturing, construction,
retail, graphics, mining, communication,
information technology, utilities and distribution
industries.
variables that allow the researchers to collect data
pertaining to maturity model of SCPMS at each
stage of life cycle project. Also we make sure that
the form and the questions would be unequivocal
and easy to answer, in order to avoid possible
ambiguity for the reader [46]. Most of the answers
of questions are based on a categorical or ordinal
scale. We were assured that the categories were
mutually exclusive, but also collectively
exhaustive, including the “Other, please specify”
category when needed [47]. Besides, the survey
was sent to the colleague’s searchers in order to
give their feedback about the instrument and to test
that the questionnaire will accomplish the study
objectives.
To reach the respondents, an electronic self
administered survey was conducted between May
and December 2009. The survey is sent to sample
of 200 large Moroccan companies by email
attachment in WinWord format. Within each
company the survey was addressed to one person at
management level (Supply chain manager, CEO, IT
manger, Production manager, Management
controller, Commercial Manager, Human resources
Manager).
From the 200 questionnaires mailed, only 45
completed responses were returned. The response
rate is 22.5%, which meets Malhotra and Grover’s
20% response rate hurdle [45].
The profile distribution frequency of the
respondents was then examined. The surveys depict
that the respondent’s profile are managers. As
shown in Table 5, 40 % of the respondents were
supply chain managers and 33 % were production
managers.
Table 5: Position by the respondents
Frequency Pour cent
Supply chain Manager 18 40% IT Manager 4 9% Production Manager 5 11% Management controller 15 33%
CEO 1 3%
Commercial Manager 1 2% Human resources Manager 1 2%
Total 45 100.0
As shown in Table 6, the majority of enterprises in
sample operate in the Agribusiness 24% followed
by 18% of Distribution. 40% of the companies were
international companies; while 82% were a filial of
group.
Table 6: Companies’ division
Frequency Pour cent Agribusiness 11 24% Motor vehicles 5 11%
Building 3 7%
Electricity 3 7%
Others 6 13%
Paper / Cardboard 2 4%
Textile 4 9%
Transportation 3 7% Distribution 8 18%
Total 45 100%
As exposed in table 7, it was found that the
maturity of the different stages of life cycle SCPMS
project was independent from each other and that a
particular company could be very advanced
regarding one stage, while being rather antiquated
regarding another stage. The results show that the
average of maturity level of different stages of life
cycle SCMPS is near to the level 2.
From the analysis of the “Initiation Project”
maturity stage results, it emerged that only a 26%
have a level between 3 and 4. We can conclude that
the majority of Moroccan large sized companies
don’t pay attention to this stage.
Also we note that the “Human resources
preparation” stage is neglected by these companies
(62% in level 2 and 27% in level 1).
In addition the Moroccan companies give more
importance to “Choice of SCPMS framework and
defining performance indicators” stage (36%
between level 3 and 4).
Indeed the “Launch SCPMS” is the more advanced
maturity stage of the SCPMS project (45 %
between level 3 and 4 and only 4% in level 1).
This
demonstrates that the Moroccan large
companies focus their efforts at SCPMS project on
the technical aspects of the implementation of
performance indicators (Collection of Data and
Storage, Communication of CMPS reports). The
“Improve SCPMS” stage is the most basic stage (96
% between level 1 and 2).
We have cited that 44% of the sample companies
are not satisfied about their SCPMS and 36% plan
to launch a project to improve their SCPMS.
This proves that Moroccan firms are aware of their
SCPMS project maturity level and they are
establishing a dynamic of continuous improvement
performance. The
survey’s results reflect an
“Adolescent” level of maturity of
performance
management supply chain, representing
opportunities for large sized Moroccan companies’
improvement. Also the empirical analysis
demonstrates the capacity of the proposed model to
asses the maturity of the SCPMS project in
different industries.
5. Conclusion and Future Research
more interesting in assessing maturity level and
developing improvement roadmap. There are, also,
some evidences from the results which that the
maturity for SCPMS is at round “Adolescent” level.
It was found that the maturity of the different stages
of life cycle SCPMS project was independent from
each other. Indeed the pilot test is very advanced
regarding one stage, while being rather antiquated
regarding another stage. Hence we might conclude
that the stages which are mainly determined by
technical aspects are more advanced than those
stages that are process and people related. Also, the
basic maturity level in the last stage proves that the
Moroccan large sized companies have to launch a
new project to improve their SCPMS.
While doing some works in the future the suggested
Maturity Model should be examined with other
empirical studies in different contexts. Also there is
a challenge on how to adapt the proposed maturity
model for SMEs companies.
Table 7: Maturity level for each stage of life cycle SCPMS project
Life cycle SCPMS project Maturity level Project
initiation
Human resources preparation
Choice of SCPMS framework And defining performance indicators
Launch SCPMS
Improve SCPMS
Level 1 Ad-hoc 21% 27% 24% 4% 56% 26% Level 2 Adolescent 53% 62% 40% 51% 40% 49% Level 3 Grown-up 24% 11% 33% 27% 4% 20% Level 4 Mature 2% 0% 3% 18% 0% 5%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mean 2.09 1.84 2.13 2.58 1.49 2.02 Std. Deviation .73 .60 .81 .83 .58
References
[1]L. Berrah, and C. Vincent, “Towards an aggregation performance measurement system model in a supply chain context”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 58, No. 7, 2007, pp. 709-719.
[2]E. U. Olugu, and K. Y. Wong, “Supply Chain Performance Evaluation: Trends and Challenges”, American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2009, pp. 202-211.
[3]P. Charan, R. Shankar, and R. K. Baisya, “Modelling the barriers of Supply Chain Performance Measurement System implementation in the Indian automobile supply chain”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2009, pp. 614-630.
[4]H. Forslund, and P. Jonsson,, “Selection, implementation and use of ERP systems for supply chain performance management”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110, No. 8, 2010, pp. 1159-1175.
[5]M. Najmi, J. Rigas, and I. S. Fan, “A framework to review performance measurement systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 11, No 2, 2005, pp. 109-122.
[6]J. Cai, X. Liu, Z. Xiao, and J. Liu, “Improving supply chain performance management: A systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46, 2009, pp. 512-521.
[7]D. Y. Kim, and G. Grant, “E-government maturity model using the capability maturity model integration”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2010, pp. 230-244. [8]X. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Fuzzy evaluation of Project
Management Maturity model based on neural network”, Advanced Management Science, Vol. 9, No. 11, 2010, pp. 527-531.
[9]Project Management Institute (PMI), OPM3, Organizational Project Management Maturity model, Knowledge foundation, Newtown Square, 2008. [10]P. Cocca, and M. Alberti, “A framework to assess
performance measurement systems in SMEs”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2010, pp. 186-200. [11]T. Wettstein, and P. Kueng, “A maturity model for
performance measurement systems”, in: C.A. Brebbia, P. Pascolo, (Eds.), Management Information Systems GIS and Remote Sensing, WIT Press, Southampton, 2002.
[12]K. McCormack, MB. Ladeira, and MPV. Oliveira, “Supply Chain Maturity and Performance in Brazil”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 13, No 4, 2008, pp. 272-282.
[13]H.G. Reyes, and R. Giachetti, “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in Mexico”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, 2010, pp. 415-424.
[14]M. Niazi, D. Wilson, and D. Zowghi, “A maturity model for the implementation of software process improvement: an empirical study”, Software Process: Improvement and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2006, pp. 193–211.
[15]P. Trkman, M. I. Štemberger, and J. Jaklic, A., “Groznik, Process approach to supply chain integration”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2007, pp. 116–128.
[16]R. Bhagwat, M.K. Sharma, “Performance measurement of supply chain management: A balanced scorecard approach”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2007, pp. 43-62.
[17]P. Gaiardelli, N. Saccani, and L. Songini, “Performance measurement of the after-sales service network-Evidence from the automotive industry”, Computers in Industry. Vol. 58, 2007, pp. 698–708. [18]C. Hombourg, “Improving ABC heuristics by higher
level cost drivers”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 157, 2004, pp. 332-343.
[20]A. Schneiderman, “Why balanced scorecards fail”, Journal of Strategic Performance Measurement, 1999, pp. 6–11.
[21]T. Cooke-Davies, “The real success factors on projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 20, 2002, pp. 185–190.
[22]L. Bourne, and D.H.T. Walker, “Project relationship management and the Stakeholder Circle™”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009, pp. 125-130.
[23]F. Franceschini, M. Galetto, and D. Maisano, Management by measurement: designing key indicators and performance measurement systems, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2007.
[24]X. Li, X. Gu, and Z. Liu, “A strategic performance measurement system for firms across supply and demand chains on the analogy of ecological succession”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, No. 12, 2009, pp. 2918–2929.
[25]D. M. Lambert, Supply chain management: processes partnerships performance, USA, 2008.
[26]P. Kueng, and A.J. Krahn, “Building a process performance measurement system some early experiences”, Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, Vol. 58, 1999, pp. 149–159.
[27]A. Yilmaz, and C.G. Atalay, “A Theoretical Analyze on the Concept of Trust in Organisational Life”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, pp. 341-352.
[28]M.L. Lengnick-Hall, C.A. Lengnick-Hall, L.S. Andrade, and B. Drake, “Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 19, 2009, pp. 64–85.
[29]A. E. Ellinger, A. B. Elmadag, and A. D. Ellinger, “An examination of organizations' frontline service employee development practices”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 3, 2007, pp. 293-314.
[30]R.M. Monczka, R.B. Handfield, and L. Giunipero, Purchasing and Supply Chain Management, USA: South-Western, 2009.
[31]U. S. Bititci, K. Mendibil, S. Nudurupati, T. Turner, and P. Garengo, “The interplay between performance measurement organizational culture and management styles”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8, 2004, pp. 28-41.
[32]M. Wouters, and C. Wilderom, “Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: a longitudinal field study of a logistics department”, Accounting Organizations and Society, Vol. 33, No. (4/5), 2008, pp. 488-516.
[33]B. Andersen, and T. Fagerhaug, Performance measurement explained: designing and implementing your state-of-the-art system, USA: American Society for Quality, 2001.
[34]M. Wouters, and M. Sportel, “The role of existing measures in developing and implementing performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, 2005, pp. 1062 – 1082.
[35]B. Beamon, “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1999, pp. 275–292. [36]A. Gunasekaran, C. Patelb, and R. E. McGaughey,
“A framework for supply chain performance
measurement. International Journal of Production Economics”, Vol. 87, No. 3, 2004, pp. 333–347. [37]D. Medori, and D. Steeple, “A framework for
auditing and enhancing performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, 2000, pp. 520-533.
[38]P. Taticchi, and KR. Balachandran, “Forward performance measurement and management integrated frameworks”, International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2008, pp. 140-157.
[39]J. Ukko, J. Tenhunen, and H. Rantanen, “Performance measurement impacts on management and leadership: Perspectives of management and employees” Production Economics, Vol. 110, 2007, pp. 39–51.
[40]C. Wei, and L. Chen, “Developing Supply Chain Management System Evaluation Attributes Based on the Supply Chain Strategy”, in: V. Kordic, (Eds.), Supply Chain Theory and Applications, Vienna: I-Tech Education and Publishing, 2008.
[41]S. Blanc, Y. Ducq, and B. Vallespir, “Evolution management towards interoperable supply chains using performance measurement”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 58, 2007, pp. 720–732.
[42]B. Carreira, Powerful Tools for Dramatically Reducing Waste and Maximizing Profits, New York: AMACOM, 2005.
[43]T. J. Cooke-davies, and A. Arzymanowc, “The maturity of project management in different industries An investigation into variations between project management models”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, 2003, pp. 471-478. [44]A. F. Bay, and M. Skitmore, “Project management
maturity: some results from Indonesia”, Journal of Building and Construction Management, Vol. 10, 2006, pp. 1-5.
[45]M. K. Malhotra, and V. Grover, “An assessment of survey research in POM from construct to theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16, 1998, pp. 407-425.
[46]C. Forza, “Survey research in operations management: a process-based perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22, No 2, 2002, pp. 152-194. [47]L.M. Rea, and R.A. Parker, Designing & Conducting
